Denying the Holocaust threatens democracy. So does denying the election results.

This was posted by Deborah E. Lipstadt and Norman Eisen in the Washington Post on December 23, 2020.

Scoff. That’s what we did years ago when we each first heard about Holocaust denial, as a Holocaust historian and the child of a survivor, respectively. Dismissing it as the historical equivalent of flat-Earth theory, we reassured ourselves that the Holocaust has the painful distinction of being the best-documented genocide in the world. Who could claim it did not happen? But we soon discovered we were wrong to laugh at it, as the falsehood crept into classrooms, books and even international relations. We have learned — the hard way — to take it seriously.

That is why in recent weeks we have watched with alarm the birth of another powerful disinformation mythology: the false conviction pushed by President Trump and his enablers that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was stolen.

We had wondered whether the definitive vote of the electoral college and the declaration by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that Joe Biden was the president-elect might provide a final end to Trump’s electoral fraud fantasies. But he has instead redoubled his dangerous disinformation crusade, reportedly even probing the use of the military to further his bizarre theory that the election was stolen.

Call it democracy denial.

As students of history, we do not make this comparison lightly: No lie could be as bad as denying the reality of a genocide. But democracy denial is bad enough.

Like Holocaust denial, there is an unmistakable racial tinge to Trump’s democracy denial. He and his cohort are openly targeting strongly minority jurisdictions with their false claims, in particular cities with large Black populations — Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta. Here’s how Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph W. Giuliani, put it: “You knew if you lived in Philadelphia. Unless you’re stunod — that’s an Italian expression for stupid — unless you’re stupid, you knew that a lot of people were coming over from Camden to vote,” he said. “And it’s allowed to happen because it’s a Democrat, corrupt city, and has been for years.”

As Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has noted, “Really the themes that we see [from Trump] … are this: Black people are corrupt, Black people are incompetent and Black people can’t be trusted.”

Also like the denial of the Holocaust, the sheer scale of Trump’s electoral falsehoods is staggering: Millions of votes supposedly stolen. An alleged global conspiracy to tamper with election equipment. Purportedly widespread official complicity, including by officials such as Govs. Brian Kemp of Georgia and Doug Ducey of Arizona, who are both Republicans and Trump supporters. Even Venezuela’s long-dead Hugo Chávez is somehow involved. It makes no sense, as judge after judge has repeatedly determined.

But the same can be said of Holocaust denial.

Trump is not, of course, Adolf Hitler, and we unequivocally reject the comparison. But he has adopted the propaganda technique of the big lie. “In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,” Hitler wrote. “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

Read more.

The rest of this article explains at greater length how questioning the results of this anomaly-ridden election is undemocratic and almost as bad as questioning the Holocaust.

I was hoping that these two distinguished authors would decisively refute at least a few of the vast number of lies (called evidence) by the Trump legal teams. Like the sworn affidavits by the little people who saw what was happening that night, the whistleblowers, and the observers who were blocked from observing.

I hoped they would put an end to all the nasty rumors circulating about those shady Dominion voting machines.

But alas, they did not.

To their credit, they tried hard not to compare Trump to Hitler. They even “unequivocally rejected the comparison,” but that moment of generosity only lasted until their next sentence when the urge became uncontrollable, as it always does.

From Lefticon:

Another Hitler – a pejorative term used to describe a nationalist or populist leader on the political right.

Everyone knows that Adolf Hitler was the most evil person who ever lived, even more evil than Joseph Stalin, Vlad the Impaler, Harvey Weinstein, or Joseph McCarthy.

Most authoritarian leaders targeted for regime change through color revolutions have been compared to Hitler. When this label is applied to a sitting head of state, it is a serious accusation, justifying his removal through a coup or whatever means are necessary..

 

 

Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has ‘Relatively No Effect on Deaths’ in U.S. Spiked After Publication

This was reported on November  27, 2020 by Matt Margolis in PJ Media:

Conventional wisdom is that COVID-19 has caused thousands of deaths in the United States and nearly 1.5 million worldwide. This perception has been directly challenged by a study published by Johns Hopkins University on November 22.

Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University, critically analyzed the impact that COVID-19 had on U.S. deaths. According to Briand, the impact of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States can be fully understood by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.

According to the study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Wait, what?  Really?

That’s what it says.  And, it should come as no surprise that the study was deleted within days.

Luckily, a back-up copy remains on The Wayback Machine, and we can still read the study.

So, how exactly did the study conclude that COVID-19 has had “relatively no effect on deaths”? Here’s how the study made this determination:

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

According to Briand, “The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals.”

Briand’s analysis found that the range of deaths amongst the older population has remained within the range of past years.

So, if COVID-19 has actually had no significant impact on U.S. deaths, why does it not appear that way?

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year,” explained Briand. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”

Here’s where things get interesting.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

The study found that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”

Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.

Read more.

The rest of this article deals with the reaction of the Johns Hopkins community to Professor Briand’s article being cancelled, and their rationalizing that this was not the censorship that it was.

Doctor Briand, a mere professor of economics (not medicine, public health, or systems engineering), reported objective findings which did not conform to the established coronavirus pandemic narrative. This seemed to lead to major distress among those in other Johns Hopkins departments committed to the approved scenario.

Her findings conflicted with the consensus position at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the tracking data of the Johns Hopkins Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE). The latter is the source of the official COVID-19 statistics reported in the mass media and often displayed in an alarming graphic with globs of red on a black map of the world. At the same time that these authorities were reporting an increase in deaths to 250,000 in the US, and the governors of key states were responding on cue with more lockdowns and other restrictions, Professor Briand was quietly (and perhaps unwittingly) debunking their claims and upsetting their house of cards.

From Lefticon:

Narrative – a story.

In politics, public relations, propaganda, and social engineering, a narrative is the presentation of a series of events or arguments that promote a point of view, an ideology, or the values and norms of a culture. This kind of narrative often uses fictional elements (disinformation, misinformation) and talking points to advance the agenda of a political party or governmental agency. It is bolstered by lived experience.